Brun

My guess is that the limit is to avoid over-stressing components of the landing gear and airframe, rather than damage manifesting itself immediately. If that's the case there doesn't seem much point implementing it when you being every mission in a brand new plane.

I've had that happen on a few occasions. Think it's caused by clicking outside DCS and losing focus. Running in fullscreen should prevent it.

I already mentioned why, but if a more authoritative explanation is required see page 17 of this pdf.

The higher resolution is necessary because the rendered image has a distortion applied to correspond with the optics of the headset.

Nvidia texture tools adds DDS support to Photoshop.

That just looks like a regular scroll wheel. From what I understand the Hornet's antenna control is return-to-centre, like the pitch bend on an electronic keyboard. Might be something worth looking into...

There's nothing wrong with the throttle implementation. If you remove this 'deadzone', you won't have any way to set the engines to idle on the ground or carrier. The real aircraft doesn't allow you to move the throttle all the way back when airborne, so really you shouldn't be doing that in the sim. Appreciate that's difficult without a physical stop, but there's nothing ED can do about it. Edit: I Apologise. Just remembered that there is a physical deadzone as well as the in-flight idle thing (although I still think the latter causes a lot of confusion, so the above still applies). I accounted for it months ago in my Warthog profile and had since forgotten about it.

The USB Game Controllers interface has a max of 32, but I had no issues assigning 33-64 in DCS.

In other news, I have a small addition... I've also just replaced all the encoders (with the exception of the COMM channel selectors) with pots. These are running through a Bodnar BU0836A, so are seen as a separate device. This is useful cos I was running out of inputs on the BBI-64 and now have the HDG and CRS switches to connect, plus the Tornado landing gear handle I'd got hold of. Really pleased with the pots even tho they were cheapo Amazon jobbies. Feeling is great and they're pretty much perfect 1:1 rotation with the in-game ones. It's funny how I keep reaching for other stuff in the cockpit now, before realising I need the mouse. Might do the master arm panel next since it's relatively simple and pretty important.

Thanks Carles, I haven't considered a 3D printed back cover simply because it would be very expensive for a non-functional piece. I did look for existing enclosures that may be suitable but couldn't find anything with appropriate dimensions. My own plan is to DIY something from MDF or plywood, but I think it will end up covering the UFC plus MFDs.

No, that's a 400% increase in 'pixels'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density That all refers to density of pixels *per dimension*, not area. If you double the pixel density of an image, the number of pixels increases four-fold. They're different things.

It's semantics really, but I think people generally regard 'resolution' as the horizontal and vertical dimensions of an image or display. Therefore if you take a screen which is originally 1200 pixels high (as in the original Vive) and replace it with one that's 1600, I'd argue it's misleading to describe that as anything other than a 33% increase in resolution. 'Pixels-per-inch' is another way display resolution is defined, which again applies to a single dimension rather than area. One exception to this I can think of is digital cameras, where people describe resolution in terms of overall pixels (usually megapixels). Like I said, semantics.

The resolution - i.e. number of pixels in each direction was only increased by 33%. There's 77% more pixels overall. The latter was promoted by the marketing because it sounds more impressive. Similar comparison between HD and UHD, double the resolution but the number of pixels is four times greater.

I upgraded my original Vive to the Pro yesterday, resistance finally broken by £100 discount (headset only) over the black Friday weekend. When it was first released I was put off by the resolution only being increased by ~30%, but the improvement in image quality is actually much better than I expected. Still needs a decent amount of supersampling (I'm on 1.6 at the moment) although I haven't had much time to find the best balance between that and antialiasing.

I had issues with switches not working when I'd incorrectly assigned them as encoder inputs in the configurator software.

Personally I just wanted it to be as plug and play as possible. My simming tends to be quite sporadic, so taking the time to learn - and inevitably relearn - the necessary third party software is a PITA.

*not literally, just more than you may expect. In June I upgraded my vanilla 1080 to a Ti. I always suspected VR was particularly CPU dependent so wasn't expecting the 30% performance increase the card was capable of, but the reality was very little increase at all. Last weekend I replaced my 6700k (not a bad gaming CPU @4.8GHz) with a 9900k and the difference is incredible. Only tried DCS for the first time tonight and haven't had much chance to mess with settings, but I've got pixel density at 2 and draw distance on ultra. Free flight in and around Vegas is completely smooth, even when looking to the side which was almost nauseating before. For anyone considering replacing a decent graphics card with something like a 2080 or 2080Ti, it seems well worth bearing in mind that you won't get the benefit unless your CPU is up to the job. It's also probably more about clock speed than core count so I reckon the likes of an 8700 would also do a fine job. Wish I'd done some more specific tests before upgrading, but I suspect 9900/1080 would run DCS VR much better than 6700/1080Ti.

Sorry, it was modelled as polygons rather than CAD surfaces so a STEP export isn't possible. Have no knowledge of Fusion 360.

Everything's in pieces at the moment, am drilling holes in more brackets to mount the MFDs to the main brackets. If Red Dead Redemption doesn't occupy all my weekend I'll hopefully get that sorted and upload some pics. To be honest my solution isn't very pretty, so you may want to go ahead and improvise.

If you download the zip from here there's an image with what screws to use where. I've just realised it's not particularly clear, but the inserts go opposite the blue and yellow screws. I should probably upload or add a link to that on shapeways. I actually found that the main and HUD panels were such a good fit (beginner's luck) when pressed together that the screws probably weren't necessary. No harm in a bit of over-engineering though. As mentioned on the image, you could just use screws with a nut on the inside. However that may interfere with the switches, it's all pretty tight in there.

M3, M4. The design doesn't really matter as long as the dimensions are similar. I ended up with different ones cos I didn't order them at the same time. Both I used were a rather tight fit and required some force to get in the holes, was surprised how stubborn this printed plastic can be.

Obviously the smaller the detail, the harder it's gonna be to reproduce. I knew I was being optimistic with my attempt so wasn't too surprised at the result.

That's disappointing. Mine didn't come out as well as I'd hoped, original plan was to fill the letters with paint but i realised it wasn't good enough for that. Since I'm using it in VR I wasn't too concerned. Yours definitely looks less sharp that mine though which is unfortunate.

It does need to be separate, yeah. The switches are attached to the HUD panel and the HUD cover goes on top, followed by the knobs... You should be able to print them at the same time, but you would need to separate them slightly to avoid them being fused together. That's how the Shapeways version is printed.

Ah, so it's locked by default and requires power to override that? For some reason I assumed it was the other way round. Thanks for the hint, it sounds pretty simple to overcome.